Housing for the Homeless

Over the course of the past year and a half the issue of homelessness in New York has been growing more and more visible to the public eye. According to coalition for the homeless, 2016 saw the highest level of homelessness in the city since the Great Depression. While the population of the city has obviously grown, the growth in admittance to city run shelters is truly sobering:


As the issue has grown, so too have the political ramifications for a mayor who centered his 2013 campaign on a “Tale of Two Cities,” vowing to fight an increasing divide between the increasingly wealthy folks pouring into the city and poorer communities. In September of 2015, deputy mayor for Health and Human Services (the main agency overseeing homeless services) Lilliam Barrios-Paoli resigned, and was quickly followed by Department of Homeless Services Commissioner Gilbert Taylor quitting abruptly in December of 2015. In November of 2015, in response to a call from de Blasio for the state to “step up” and help shoulder some of the costs associated with homelessness, an aide to Governor Cuomo took a shot at the mayor in the press by telling the Daily News “[I]t’s clear that the Mayor can’t manage the homeless crisis” and suggesting that maybe de Blasio isn’t smart enough to solve the problem. While we’ve all come to expect the perpetual pissing match between our dearly beloved mayor and governor, this exchange was particularly pointed. In April of last year, the report summarizing the state of homelessness ordered by the mayor was released. This report brought together staff from City Hall, the Human Resources Administration, the Department of Homeless Services and the Mayor’s Office of Operations to systematically examine why things had gotten so out of hand. Out of this report grew the current proposal to build 90 new shelters around the city.

All of this, of course, has taken place against the broader discussion of the city’s role in promoting housing development. From the conversation surrounding the  renewal of the 421-a program (which provides tax incentives for building on vacant or mostly vacant land in the city) to last spring’s drawn out battle surrounding Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (a program requiring developers to designate a certain percentage of their units as affordable for a fixed amount of time), to the wildly popular new blog Thoughts About Cities, it seems like all anyone is talking about these days is housing (or maybe that’s just what I read?).

What, then, is the immediate backdrop behind the current situation? New York City is under legal requirement to provide a bed for anyone who enters a public shelter looking for one. When there are no available beds, families are generally put up in motels around the city. As the homeless population has risen much more quickly than shelter beds, the result has been an enormous increase in the cost to the city – the Times reported last month that the City spends around $400,000 a day on hotel rooms. Moreover, the rise in homelessness that has bedeviled the mayor for the past three years will almost certainly be used against him as his campaign for re-election this fall ramps up. It’s no surprise, then, that the de Blasio administration is making this push now.

I’ve been following the conversation with interest because one of the most strenuously opposed shelters is supposed to open this week two blocks from my apartment at 1173 Bergen Street. Whether or not it will in fact open is unclear at this point due to community opposition [UPDATE: The opening has been indefinitely postponed]. As Gothamist reported last week, the shelter is supposed to have 100 beds reserved for men over the age of 62. The building, nestled among the Brooklyn brownstones, wasn’t being used for anything prior to its renovation. But the backlash against this shelter raise much more interesting questions than the anger directed at the proposed shelter in Maspeth last fall. The neighborhood of Maspeth, Queens, had no shelters when the mayor proposed the siting last fall, despite the fact that around 250 people from the neighborhood lived in city-run shelters outside the neighborhood. The conversation was characterized by classic NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) lines such as the anonymous resident assuring the local reporter, “We’re not against homeless people, we’re just against where the shelter is.” Whether or not you find their story sympathetic, it was hard to deny the fact that this community wanted to keep the unhoused folks “over there” – anywhere but Maspeth. Maspeth residents were ultimately successful in their fight to keep the shelter out.

Crown Heights, however, is different. As the Daily News reported earlier this month, Brooklyn’s Community Board 8 (in which the Bergen Street shelter is located) already has 679 homeless beds. This figure is far higher than neighboring Community Board 6 in Park Slope. CB6 (the mayor’s neighborhood, current residence at Gracie Mansion not withstanding) has just 267 beds, despite having roughly 10% more residents. Community Board 8 sits in an area that was historically red-lined, is 67% black, and has a poverty rate of 26%. Community Board 6, on the other hand, is 75% white and has a poverty rate half that of Crown Heights. The concentration of existing shelter beds, minority population, and poverty have led to understandable claims that the neighborhood has become a dumping ground for the unhoused. Moreover, as Nikita Stewart  explained earlier this month, the current plan “runs directly counter to a new City Council effort to strengthen the Fair Share Law, aimed at equitably spreading social service and other programs and amenities around the city.” (To be sure, CB6 is not the neighborhood with the lowest level of shelter beds, nor is Crown Heights the highest – though their adjacency does make the discrepancy jarring)

On the other hand, the City has argued that as they site the new shelters, they are looking at placing them in the districts experiencing the highest levels of homelessness and poverty. The thinking behind this is simple: people (in the case of the Bergen shelter, senior men) should have the option to have shelters in their communities. These guys likely have friends and family in the neighborhood, and one can make the argument that siting shelters in these districts respects the existing community. These ties could also lead to informal dissemination of job opportunities through casual interaction. The well-known but unremarked-upon secondary fact is that property tends to be less expensive in these areas, leading to a lower cost per bed – something that should be taken into account.

Unfortunately, the City has put the neighborhood in an impossible spot. They either complain about the location of the new shelters and come across as heartless, or they simply allow the City to assume that there will be less resistance to unpopular policies in poorer communities of color. Luckily, the press has distinguished this case from the case of Maspeth last fall and largely refrained from casting Crown Heights residents as NIMBYs. Indeed, while residents are currently pointing to the discrepancies in the locations of the shelters, calls for reductions of current shelter beds are muted. The current debate is centered not on whether Crown Heights ought to have any shelter beds, but rather about the inherent fairness of concentrating homeless shelters in historically marginalized communities.

This is a tough one for me. On the one hand, the idea of a homeless shelter down the street doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, my system of ethics compels me to provide shelter for the unhoused without reservation, so resistance to a shelter at any level is uncomfortable for me. On the other hand, to ignore the historical complexities of the issue would be a mistake. Traditional public housing projects have often failed in the past in large part because the concentration of poverty in a particular district prevents the formation of social ties that can often lead to better opportunities for lower income folks. Furthermore, much of the current concentration of poverty in minority areas can be directly traced to racist housing policies employed by the federal and local governments. To now say that these neighborhoods are alone responsible for dealing with the results of those policies is wrongheaded and cruel. What’s more, the willingness of the City to back down from the introduction of a single shelter bed in Maspeth (a whiter and wealthier area than Crown Heights) means that any imposition of the current plan over the objections of residents becomes, rightfully, much more loaded. So, while I do want the City to continue to build shelter beds, I have to agree with my neighbors that the placement of this shelter is ill-advised. The City ought to be taking current beds and historical factors into consideration when siting shelters. If, however, 1173 Bergen does open as a shelter to senior men, I look forward to chatting with them on the stoop, hearing their stories, and welcoming them to our neighborhood.

The Folly of Home Ownership as an Investment

I’ve got a hot investment tip for you.
Here’s the deal: First off, it’s tied to supply and demand characteristics of a singular small geographical area, so it’s very highly… focused (let’s not use annoying terms like “undiversified”). Speaking of “focused”, each share of this asset will likely account for the majority of your entire portfolio. Its value can be negatively impacted in radical ways by choices your neighbors make. Decisions made by the government, from the federal level down to a neighborhood associations, will also play an outsized role in its growth potential. Ownership of the asset will give you financial incentive to fight the poor (via affordable housing) and private and public organizations supporting these folks (such as homeless shelters, rehabilitation clinics, and that church that’s running a food pantry). You’ll become emotionally attached to this asset, too, and any attempt to separate its role as a financial instrument from its emotional role will be difficult. Ownership of this asset will make moving for any reason (like a higher paying job) even tougher. Oh, and if you’re like most people, you’ll end up borrowing huge sums of money to buy the asset – general wisdom calls a 4:1 leverage ratio prudent, though the government will help you boost that ratio to 28:1 if you haven’t bought the asset previously.

Still interested?

I’m talking, of course, about home ownership.

Finances and home ownership have a tricky relationship. So before you curse at me and close the tab, I’ll explain what I’m not saying.

I’m not saying that home ownership can’t make financial sense. If we think about it as an asset, a home does produce “income”- the income produced by a home can be thought of as the amount you’d pay in rent each year. In New York, for instance, an apartment that rents for $1,000 a month sells for, on average, $427,800.  Thus, we can think of the average home in NYC as being similar to a bond paying 2.8% per year, before principal appreciation. Here’s a table showing that average return for a few different cities:


In lots of big coastal cities the return is actually lower than mortgage rates. This is one of many explanations for why so many people rent in cities. However, these returns actually improve with time due to inflation. While the principal investment doesn’t change over time, the implied income (what you’d pay per month for an equivalent home) does increase. Broadly speaking, that’s why it generally makes more sense from a financial perspective to own your home if you’re planning to live in it for a long time than if you’ll stay only a few years. That logic is roughly borne out in the NYT tool you may have seen a while back. Home ownership also provides a buffer against rent-hikes, an enormous psychological benefit, especially for older folks on a fixed income (of course, as I wrote about when discussing historic preservation districts, home owners are still subject to higher property taxes as the values of their homes rise). But these implied income numbers are small, and only get smaller when you account for the fact that renters are generally not responsible for repairs, maintenance, yard work, or most of the other upkeep associated with home ownership. What’s more, the numbers assume outright ownership without a mortgage.

I’m also not saying that home ownership is a bad thing generally. Many people would choose to own their own home even if they realized that ownership is generally more expensive than renting – they receive positive benefits from ownership (pride, freedom to remodel or make changes, etc.) that are worth paying more for. What’s more, many neighborhoods restrict rentals, which means that “equivalent homes” is often a myth; one couldn’t find an equivalent home even if she did want to rent.

Finally, since someone will no doubt make this argument: yes, studies do show that home owners tend to participate more in their communities than renters. However, since most people aspire to home ownership, this could be almost entirely explained by the relative stability of renters versus owners. In places where renting is more common and there are fewer differences in income, age, and education between renters and owners, these differences in “civic participation” disappear. The civic participation argument has mostly been disproved as the racist propaganda that it is.

Phew. Okay. So that’s what I’m not saying. And to be transparent, I’m reasonably ambivalent about home ownership myself. While not having to worry about my plumbing or shoveling my stoop is nice right now, I won’t be surprised if at some point I decide that I’m willing to pay more money to own than I am to rent – but this won’t ever be a financial decision.

What I am talking about are people who, understandably, think of their homes as a good investment for capital investment. In the United States, we’ve completely mythologized home ownership since the late nineteenth century. From FDR’s a “nation of homeowners is unconquerable”, to William Levitt’s completely-serious “[n]o man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do”, to the mortgage-interest tax deduction (which, say it with me, costs the United States more than all public housing programs and goes overwhelmingly to the rich), the idea of owning one’s own land is part of our national identity. It’s no surprise that, in order to rationalize this mythology, we’ve told ourselves that it’s a financially prudent choice.

While the first paragraph above tried to poke fun at all the reasons why home ownership is a bad investment for principal appreciation, it’s worth spending a few serious moments with. If you follow financial trends at all, you’ll know that there’s been an explosion in index funds since the Great Recession. Why’s that? People are finally realizing that the key to a financial portfolio is diversification. People are buy these funds that track, say, the S&P 500 precisely because they give them exposure to the entire market. Rather than be loaded up in just tech stocks or just companies in Florida, individual investors are learning that spreading assets out (even within a single sector) leads, mathematically speaking, to lower risk without concomitant decreased expected reward.

Aside from the very wealthiest households, homes now represent more than 50% of holdings for American families. One single home, in one single neighborhood, subject to the economy of one single region. And we’re still being told that it’s a good financial investment. However, the raw numbers show that average house prices haven’t gone up anywhere near as quickly as the S&P 500 over the past 40 years:

For both series, 1980Q1 = 100. S&P data hereHPI data here.

Of course, the odds of hitting that orange line exactly were next-to-none. Home owners either vastly exceeded or vastly undershot that orange line because of all the issues of non-diversification discussed above. The orange line above shows what a portfolio perfectly allocated among all homes in the United States would have done – not the incredibly undiversified portfolio including precisely one (or maybe two) homes. That said, even the average of all of home buyers in 1980 saw their down payments grow by only 20% of what the S&P 500 would have returned (with dividends reinvested). This does, of course, ignore the “implied income” discussed earlier, but even when we add that in, the numbers aren’t close.

At a macro level, why does this matter? Last month, the Upshot had a really excellent piece on what would happen if Americans stopped thinking of housing as an investment, but rather thought of it as any other consumable good. In the piece, they review a recent paper by economists Joe Gyourko and (you knew this was coming) Ed Glaeser. The paper is great, too, but I’m told I have a higher tolerance for academic economics than most people. Their central thesis is that if we stopped thinking of homes as investments and thought of them as service-providers, home values would probably come down. While this would understandably upset folks who have bought into the notion of housing an investment, it would provide a massive shot in the arm for the economy as a whole – they estimate that it could increase domestic product by roughly 10%. This is due, in large part, to an increase in labor force mobility (people aren’t as geographically constrained and can move to where they would be more productive and thereby receive higher wages) and the shift in capital away from a relatively unproductive asset (housing) into the stock market where it would be put to more dynamic use.

There are many reasons why home ownership can be a rational decision for an individual. Homes are never just a financial asset – they form the center of most of our lives, and are rightly bound up in our sense of self, our familial identity, and our connections to our communities. However, our personal finances and, to a large extent, our national economy would be well served if we thought more clearly about the costs we pay, not the money we save, to own our own homes.

Historic Preservation: Good or Bad For Communities?

Remember when this dress was a big deal? The morning it blew up, my colleague and I were in the office early. No doubt we each had a filing due soon – it was rare for only a couple people to be in the office. We looked at the picture, then spent the next few minutes talking about how dumb it was. Only after five minutes did I say, “The image must be off. It’s just so obviously white and gold.” Turns out, as we’d spent five minutes talking about how ridiculously obvious the color of the dress was, we had actually been seeing it differently the entire time. He thought it was blue and black (he was technically right).

Why bring this up? Well, I was reminded of the encounter the other day when a friend and I got into a conversation about the benefits and drawbacks of historic preservation districts (Wait! Don’t go! I promise this is as interesting as The Dress!). I understand why they’re politically unavoidable, but consider them a big problem. She, on the other hand, was surprised to find that I would be opposed to them. She was especially surprised that I was opposed to them as someone engaged in urban planning and interested in creating livable, lovable communities. Conversely, I was shocked that someone who had studied these things in a formal way thought highly of them. We see historical preservation completely differently.

Why am I so against historic preservation districts? And why was my friend, who has studied urban planning and for whom I have tremendous respect, surprised by that? I can answer the first, but am hoping you’ll chime in if you think I’m wrong. Because to me, it seems pretty obvious. Simply put, these districts directly lead to a constriction of the housing supply. The best example that I can think of in New York is the SoHo neighborhood. Last year, Kelsey and I went on a Jane’s Walk in SoHo. The walk was led by two women whose families had (independently) moved into the neighborhood when they were kids. They had fond memories of their artist dads painting in the lofts, and of the excitement coming from living in an area where residential living wasn’t yet allowed by the zoning code. They could live here, in Manhattan, virtually for free. In case you’re unfamiliar, SoHo is home to some truly great architecture. Some of the very earliest cast iron buildings anywhere in the world can be found in the area. On account of these buildings the entire area is protected by historic preservation laws, and therefore no building can be knocked down, built upon, or changed in any way without jumping through endless loops.

SoHo area has loads of cultural cachet (remember the artists in their lofts?). It’s centrally located in Lower Manhattan with great access to transit. The buildings are beautiful. Plus, the historic designation makes it that much cooler. You can probably imagine the result of all this even if you haven’t seen it in person. It feels like a giant, stunning outdoor mall. The Apple store occupies the historic post office – and that’s only the beginning. Only the most expensive stores and biggest businesses can afford the retail space, and the price of all housing units have gone through the roof. Because what happens when demand increases dramatically but supply is fixed? Here’s your Econ 101 reminder of the day (if supply and demand charts haven’t been drilled into your brain by merciless professors, this will likely make you more confused and not be helpful):


The price goes up! In the case of SoHo case, a lot. The beautiful buildings are preserved (and made into altars of capitalism), but the artists and their families who moved into the area in the sixties and seventies could never, ever, ever afford to live in the neighborhood now. To put it simply, the buildings have been preserved at the expense of the community of people who lived there. The same story has played out across the city, from Greenwich Village to Bed-Stuy. Historic preservation ultimately means that the buildings in a neighborhood are protected while the people are priced out. (I spent loads of time this weekend looking for census-tract level rental prices, hoping to show systematically that rents in historic districts have gone up more than comparable areas, but couldn’t turn up that data anywhere. If anyone knows if it exists, give me a shout!).

The opposing argument, which I won’t be able to make nearly as well, says that buildings impart a sense of place, of history, and of culture. There is a lot of literature supporting the notion that the streetscape has a big impact on the way that pedestrians interact with one another, the use of public space, and more. What’s more, impressive architectural districts (like SoHo and the Village) can drive tourism, leading to higher tax receipts for the city. What’s more, people feel connected to the way their neighborhood feels, and putting controls on any changes can seem like the easiest way to keep things as they are.

But the fact of the matter is that communities are constantly changing, especially now as wealthier people are moving back to the city. Despite the rhetoric, the choice is not between “Historic preservation to prevent development and ensure continuity of the community” and “allow people to build.” Rather, neighborhoods have to choose between keeping the buildings the same while the area becomes too expensive for many current residents (especially, but because of property taxes not exclusively, renters), or destroying some current buildings but adding enough units to keep prices relatively stable and therefore maintain affordability for the current community. I’ll argue till I’m blue in the face that maintaining affordability for the existing community is more important than maintaining a whole neighborhood worth of buildings.

Now, there are many reasons to be skeptical that a free-market approach will maintain affordability for a neighborhood. For instance, as Rick Jacobus pointed out last year at Shelterforce, new development in an area can actually stimulate demand in that neighborhood. Big, shiny new buildings can signal that an area is up-and-coming, and thereby induce more demand than their additional units absorb, leading to the paradox of increased supply and increased prices. That said, increased supply must lead to lower prices at the metropolitan level, even if it does have wacky effects at the hyper-local level. Ultimately, any restriction on building will lead to higher rents across the region.

There’s also reason to believe that the market won’t save buildings that do deserve to be preserved (Penn Station and the Metropolitan Opera House come immediately to mind). And in fact, there may be some public benefit to freezing a whole street in a particular moment in time. While the market will always do some historic preservation on its own (there will never be a time when a fancy person won’t pay huge sums to live in a brownstone in Brooklyn Heights), a strong argument can be made that certain buildings deserve to be protected from market forces. History, beauty, and civic pride are all worthy aims. However, any conversation that doesn’t frankly admit that historic preservation ultimately prioritizes the buildings over the people living in that district is a dishonest one. A city can reasonably say, in some select instances, that the public benefit realized through preservation is higher than the cost borne by the individuals – we have to make difficult trade-offs in cities all the time. It’s just that, in the case of historic preservation, we usually pretend that we’re helping the people we’re displacing. We say we’re protecting communities; instead, we’re protecting brick and stone. I can’t help but think that if we were honest about the decisions we’re making, we’d be a lot more reluctant to blanket whole neighborhoods with historic preservation designations.

So that’s how I see the dress: white and gold, no way about it. Historic preservation can serve a use, but it always prioritizes buildings over people. It drives up rents for local businesses, drives up rents for current tenants, and drives up property taxes for homeowners. Residents of an area may want historic preservation, but these folks fall into one of three groups: those who don’t know historic preservation will cause costs to go up, those who are relatively well-off enough to be able to pay more in return for freezing development (and are indifferent to the challenges this constriction puts on their less well-off neighbors), and those who are hoping to profit from an increase in home values. None of these build community. Historic districts are beautiful, but we shouldn’t ever lose sight of the fact that cities are for people, not for buildings.

How do you see the “dress” of historic preservation? Do you think it can be good for local communities? Why? I’m curious in hearing an opposing argument.

1,000(ish) Miles on a Citibike

I recently hit a big milestone in the life of a Citi Biker:


That’s right, 1K miles in the saddle.

Last spring, I read Charles Montgomery’s Happy City. If you’ve spent any time around me in the past year, you’ve probably heard me talk about it. It’s become my go-to book recommendation for people curious about why they should be interested in urban form. If you haven’t read it, I can’t suggest it highly enough- and for a more in depth review, check out Mr. Money Mustache’s post on it. In Happy City, Montgomery spends a while talking about how much happier human-powered transportation makes people. In particular, he explains that in study after study, it’s been shown that folks who commute by bike are happier, fitter, and more connected to their community.

Well, Happy City got me on a bike, and I haven’t looked back! I figured that this milestone would be a good chance to see what we can learn about cycling in New York from Citi Bike*. Currently, the program receives no public funding. It’s an entirely self-supporting initiative. However, a proposal to subsidize expansion into lower-income areas is picking up steam in city council. What with all the reports coming out showing that cycling is good both for the city (lower pollution, obviously, but cycling also leads to fewer deaths, less congestion for people using all modes, and higher spending at small businesses) and for people biking (who knew? Exercise built into your daily routine is good for you!), it’s becoming clear that cities can reap big benefits from investing in bike infrastructure. In fact, a paper in the BMJ last fall showed that, dollar for dollar, investment in bike lanes in New York City is one of the most cost effective public health interventions available. So it’s no surprise that Ydanis Rodriguez and others in city council are arguing for the expansion of Citi Bike by saying it will improve life for all New Yorkers. This push has only intensified as it’s become clear that New York’s bike share program is literally the most expensive one in the entire world.

But do the data bear the argument out? Are people using the thing? Simply put, yes. The system sees a lot of use.

Six Month Moving Average, Average Daily Trips from All Stations

Of course, much of that growth is due to the expansion of the system further into Brooklyn and Manhattan. However, even if we look just at trips starting and ending within the original boundaries of the program, we see tremendous growth:

Six Month Moving Average, Average Daily Trips in Original Geographic Region

So what does this mean? It means that more and more people are using the system, and more riders and rides are being added even in areas that are already covered.

More interesting than how many trips are being taken are the characteristics of who is riding. Across the system, and across time, men far outnumber women, though the percentage of trips taken by women does go up each summer and has grown with time:

Percentage of trips taken by each gender by year. Total sizes based on total number of trips.

The women who do ride, however, tend to be hardier than their male counterparts. Not only are a larger share of their trips inter-borough (4.3% to 4.0%), they also consistently spend more time in the saddle:

Average Trip Duration by Gender

How about ages? Unsurprisingly, the median age of riders in the Citi Bike network tend to reflect the ages of residents in neighborhoods (though most riders are in their 30s):

Median Age by Station, 2016

Finally, as a Brooklynite, I was curious about how last summer’s major expansion into more of the borough affected commute times. At the beginning of the summer I expected that, as more people were able to bike near their homes, I would have a tougher time finding a bike at the end of the day. Of all rides starting or ending in Brooklyn, how did the percentage that were inter-borough change?

Weeknight trips starting between 5 and 6 PM with at least one end in Brooklyn

Prior to 2016, trips starting between 5 and 6 PM that either started or ended in Brooklyn (or both) were nearly as likely to be inter-borough as to be entirely inside of Brooklyn. In fact, in the summers of 2014 and 2015, these evening commute trips were more often between Brooklyn and Manhattan than completely within Brooklyn. However, with the explosion of  stations in Brooklyn, a larger share of these commutes were entirely within the borough. And I can relate. That picture at the top of the post? I happily took that after Citi Bike expanded to near the Park Slope Food Coop. I now win all the Brooklyn Points for doing my grocery shopping at the Coop using a Citi Bike, right?

So what does this all mean? The first thing that jumps out to me is the gender disparity. If we agree that cycling is a great way for people to get around the city, we need to understand why so many fewer women are biking than men. Many people have written that it is, among other things, an issue of safety: women are less likely to take a still-risky bike onto city streets. If an expansion of Citi Bike is truly going to help all New Yorkers, we need more than just more stations. We need to invest in improving cycling infrastructure and make it much safer. We need even more protected bike lanes. Though CityLab predicted in 2013 that bike share would end the gender disparity in cycling, it’s clear that it hasn’t been a silver bullet- which shouldn’t really be a surprise.

The second thing I see is the growth in cycling in areas that already had Citi Bike coverage. What does this mean? To my eye, it points to the fact that there are many people willing to try riding a bike, but need a little coaxing. These are the folks that started riding after their neighbors and coworkers took the plunge. After they saw people riding in their neighborhoods, they decided to give it a spin. Clearly, there are many more people even within current Citi Bike coverage areas that we can get onto a bike.

The last thing I see relates most directly to Citi Bike expansion itself. As Citi Bike grew in Brooklyn last summer, not only did more people start taking them within Brooklyn itself, but the average trip length of weeknight commutes dropped by 3 minutes and 42 seconds (14%) between August 2015 and August 2016. These folks are the bread and butter of what Citi Bike is trying to do. My commute between Crown Heights and the Financial District on a Citi Bike is an outlier, and hopefully will remain that way. Citi Bike will succeed best by serving people looking for a quick way to get a few blocks. For these people, the cost of buying and maintaining a bike would be too high to make it worth it. Giving these people an ability to get around via bike without buying their own provides a huge public good- one much larger than the cost of subsidizing the system will be.

Expanding Citi Bike using public funds is a good idea. As we’ve seen, people spend a lot of time using the system. However, if we really want to improve the quality of life in New York by way of the bicycle, we’ll need to do more to address the disparities shown (and those not, like correlations between wealth and cycling) in the Citi Bike data.

But I’ve got to end this love letter with a quick critique (look, Ma, I’m a real New Yorker!). I don’t understand why Citi Bike measures mileage the way that it does. Rather than plugging the start point and the end point into Google maps to figure out how far you rode (or how long the most direct route is), they use the following formula:


The result? My median commute time is 30 minutes and 13 seconds, which means that Citi Bike thinks that my 5.5 mile commute is only 3.75 miles. By that ratio, I passed the 1,000 mile sometime back in November. Whatever.

*Citi Bike posts excellent trip-level data here. I used Stata to scrape and process the data, and the rest of the charts and maps here come from Tableau.

Canutillo, Texas

I’ve been thinking all day about an article I read this morning about a school board outside El Paso, Texas, considering a resolution to oppose public housing on the grounds that students that would hail from these apartments would be “too costly to educate.” According to the article, the draft resolution points to “additional financial demands” as well as increased social problems.

A few weeks ago I made my way through Kenneth T. Jackson’s Crabgrass Frontier, and found his discussion on the history of annexation in American cities particularly interesting- probably because I didn’t previously know anything about it. Prior to the twentieth century, American cities had pretty much free reign when it came to the annexation of outlying areas surrounding their cities (think the five boroughs in New York becoming one city in 1898, or the gradual growth of older cities such as Chicago). As wealthy residents moved further from city centers, the cities were able to incorporate these newer areas, thereby preserving their tax base. The richer, outlying areas were used to cross-subsidize poorer areas. This system made sense; residents of these areas were likely to work in the city, and to draw on centralized utilities and infrastructure. Proximity to cities conferred benefits on these residents, and their taxes reflected it.

Jackson details the awakening of these out-lying areas to the realization that they could fight for suburban incorporation and therefore remain independent of the more urban areas they had left behind. He points especially to the collection of towns in Westchester County, directly north of the northern border of New York City. These areas continued to work in and receive benefits from the city, but their economic contributions to the metropolis were substantially cut.

Fast forward to 2017, and the result of the withdrawal of these relatively wealthier enclaves-become-independent cities becomes abundantly clear. The Canutillo Independent School district does not cover a particularly large portion of El Paso County. A metropolitan-wide school district would be relatively indifferent regarding the placement of public housing if it knew that, regardless of which block the housing was located on, the district would be responsible for educating its residents. It’s hard to fault the Canutillo school board too much here. If the new housing not only brings in families with below-average incomes but also causes wealthier families to move out of their catchment area, they are hit on both ends.

Of course, suburban municipalities are often set up, at least implicitly, in order to ensure that families are able to send their kids to well-funded public schools (because the median household income in Canutillo is roughly the same as all of El Paso County, that’s not likely the case here). An excellent CityLab article from earlier this month details how families selected segregated neighborhoods based on the quality of their schools, and worked to keep poorer and blacker families out of their districts. While less racially explicit now, laws such as minimum plot sizes ensure that lower income families are unable to purchase homes in suburban areas with good school districts, thereby maintaining high per-student funding and household incomes.

Rage all you want about the incompetence of Betsy DeVos. And unprepared she is. But so long as suburban municipalities are able to reap the benefits of living near a city but avoid a cross-subsidization of their lower-income neighbors, American public schools will continue to face yawning performance and funding disparities. So, remind me where you’re moving so you can send your kids to a good public school?

Social Services in the Suburbs

The past few months have seen a slew of articles critiquing the common narrative proclaiming the renaissance of the city in America. In fact, only a small slice of the US population (the young, the white, and the educated) is becoming more urban. While those with the most economic and social capital move to the cities, everyone else is still moving into less dense, more spread out, and more car dependent neighborhoods. This trend has wide-ranging implications for how we administer social services to the poor.

Measuring a city’s ability to serve its low-income residents is notoriously tricky. Cities providing the fewest social services to their residents are often abandoned by those residents, leading to artificially low rates of poverty. Cities with robust safety nets often see the reverse effect. The difficulty of analyzing the effectiveness of these policies often distracts from a more fundamental question: Do cities have a unique ability to care for the poor by virtue of their density? The answer seems to be a resounding yes.

Here in New York City, representatives from Riders Alliance and others have been pushing for subsidized MetroCards. This is hugely important, as reliable access to jobs and services vastly increase the earning potential for lower income residents of the city. A subsidized MetroCard, or its equivalent, is much less effective at ensuring economic access in a less dense region without a sufficient network of public transportation options. What, in the suburbs, would a program like this look like? Subsidized car ownership certainly doesn’t make much sense. The result is often bleak: The Federal Highway Administration estimates that transportation costs consume 25% of the average family income in auto dependent areas, but only 9% of family income in denser regions. While the poor in every city are the most likely to use public transportation, public transportation is not an effective link the wider community in suburban areas built on the expectation of ubiquitous car ownership. A family is forced to choose whether they will be at the mercy of a stigmatized, ineffective public transit system or pump a quarter of their income into car ownership.

Similar arguments can be made for everything from soup kitchens to food pantries, from job training sites to homeless shelters. In areas where people are spread out, these social services don’t have the dense concentration of users that enable them to be cost effective. The effective, efficient provision of social services are dependent on density.

Mayor de Blasio’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and Zoning for Quality and Affordability plans have been the subject of intense debate. These plans have often centered on the issues of displacement and neighborhood ownership. With good reason, many have lamented that the city is becoming increasingly unaffordable and that the character of long established neighborhoods is at risk. Much ink has been spilled about rising prices forcing lower income residents to leave the city behind, and the potential impact of losing touch with the network and support system often attendant in neighborhoods. We have rightly lamented the loss of community, but we have not paid enough attention to the economic and employment effects of those being displaced from the city. Unfortunately, low income residents being forced to leave the city due to rising prices are losing more than just community- they are losing access to dense, urban neighborhoods that are uniquely suited to provide them with the services they need.

Gentrification will continue to be a loaded, tense word for years to come. Rents will still be much too high for too many people. But as we continue to disagree over and to debate the merits of plans for affordable housing, we cannot lose sight of the fact that more than just community character is at stake. If we are unable to accommodate our lower income neighbors, we will be forcing them to move to areas systemically unable to provide for their needs anywhere near as effectively as the cities they currently live in.